incur political opposition. The political costs of reducing subsidies, especially if
done without appropriate political preparation, may be higher than the economic
gains. The benefits of food subsidies to political leaders could be important and
perhaps sufficient to sustain then when other redistribution programmes are
ended. But it could also result in their abuse. And there was a point beyond which
increases in administrative staff and costs involved in reaching poor households
could be supported. Often, a balance has to be struck between criteria that focus
on the poorest households and less exacting criteria that address affliction on
a community or area basis, without dissipating scarce resources and impact, or
biasing benefits in favour of any one particular group. Many of the difficulties
involved may be overcome if the target population itself was involved in the
design, implementation and evaluation of subsidy programmes. Risk assessment
and vulnerability mapping could provide useful operational tools for focusing
attention on those most in need and for determining the types and amounts of
assistance required. In the absence of reliable data, appropriate rapid appraisal and
beneficiary participation techniques could be used to establish the parameters for
targeting, which could be more finely defined through the operation of interven-
tion programmes.
acquire sufficient food for nutritional requirements while such capacity is being
created'. To be cost-effective, `it is essential that the programmes be targeted'. But
opportunities for using food subsidies to create self-sustaining income-generating
capacity among the poor `have not been fully exploited and should be pursued'.
The most important lesson learned was that consumer food subsidies could be
`a powerful and cost-effective policy tool to reach certain social, economic, and
political goals, or they can be harmful to growth and equity'. This depended on
when and how they were applied.